Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: > > There is a more fundamental reason why it would not work: > a non-static method can not be a signal handler, since the kernel > will not supply 'this' parameter to it. > Please just stick to the actual question. I already have my class handling signals just fine. I have a workaround for the above issue.
> Besides, all kinds of things (operator new; cout; exceptions, > etc.) do not work in the (async)signal handling context, so putting > any C++ into the body of a signal handler will likely only itroduce > hard to replicate bugs. > When did I say I was going to put C++ code into the signal handler? I know the restrictions of putting C++ code into a signal handler. Once again, please just answer the actual question or don't respond. The question is about addressing virtual method addresses, not the wisdom of using signal handlers in C++. > What's so cool about it? Sounds pretty lame to me. > Go to *#&@. If you have nothing useful to say, please control yourself and don't respond at all. It's a lot easier than allowing everyone on the internet to see how big of a jerk you are. _______________________________________________ help-gplusplus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gplusplus
